[G.R. No. 17650. February 15, 1922.

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTEMIO MOJICA, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS: It occurred from the preceding consecutive friction and animosity between the police and constabulary
soldiers after the police arrested one of the soldiers after suspicious circumstance of bringing a woman inside a city
wall. The incident caused considerable irritation among the Constabulary troops stationed at Santa Lucia Barracks.

On the other day, one of the Constabulary soldiers, the deceased Crispin Macasinag, was placed under arrest by an
American police officer who endeavored to conduct him from the middle of the street and over to the sidewalk. He
resisted the officer and finally succeeded in freeing himself. He then confronted policeman Duque whom he struck
with his fist and who returned the blow with his club. Macasinag reeled from the blow inflicted on him by Duque
and while apparently in a somewhat dazed condition, drew his mess kit knife and brandishing it attacked the
appellant. The appellant retreated a step or two, drew his revolver and discharged it at Macasinag inflicting a
wound from which the latter died a few days later.

The appellant admits having killed Macasinag, but maintains that he did so in self-defense and that he, therefore,
is exempt from criminal liability under paragraph 4 of article 8 of the Penal Code. However, the defendant is
charged with the crime of homicide by the lower court and sentenced him to fourteen years, eight months and one
day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law and the costs, and to indemnity the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P1,000, thus the appellant appealed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the killing of the deceased done by Mojica was justified under the duty of police in acting
self-defense.

DECISION: The killing was justified.

1. IN CRIMINAL LAW; SELF-DEFENSE; DUTY OF POLICEMAN. — A policeman in the performance of his duty must
stand his ground and cannot take refuge in flight when attacked. His duty requires him to overcome his opponent
and the force he may exert therefore differs somewhat from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-
defense.The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime with which
he is charged, with the costs in both instances de oficio. So ordered.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The. defendant, a police officer, in the line of his duty endeavored to quell a disturbance on a
public street. In doing so he was attacked by the deceased, who was armed with a knife. The defendant discharged
his revolver against his assailant and fatally wounded him. Held: That under the circumstances the force employed
by the defendant was reasonably necessary and that he acted in legitimate self-defense.

 The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime with which
he is charged, with the costs in both instances de oficio. So ordered.